Why read if it is incomprehensible?

In 2016, two professors, J Obar and A Oeldorf-Hirsch, asked a group of undergraduate students to sign up to a fictitious social networking site, called NameDrop, wrote S Khanna. To sign up they had to give their "consent to specific terms of service and privacy policies which, as is the wont on most social platforms, were extremely long". "Thus, one of the clauses stated that the data collected by NameDrop may be shared with third parties including US National Security Agency. Another clause stated that participants, by accepting the terms, would give up their first born child to NameDrop." A stunning 98% of the students accepted the terms, showing that they had not read what they signed. Why is this news? Because a whistleblower, named Christopher Wylie, has alleged that Cambridge Analytica has used user data on Facebook for Donald Trump's presidential campaign and for the Leave EU camp during the Brexit referendum. This has created a furore on data privacy and the US Congress is looking to investigate all social media sites, including Facebook, Google and Twitter. Khanna advises that users "spend time to read the fine prints of the agreements much as one would before buying a house of any other expensive asset". Trouble is, even educated people do not understand the legal jargon used in sale contracts during buying a house and sign whatever their lawyer puts in front of them. Lawyers carry out 'conveyancing' during which they check whether a property is clear of debt or have other claimants. Medical insurance forms are notorious for using a huge list of exclusions so that the customer is denied legitimate claims for frivolous reasons. Even worse, car insurance is mandatory by law so we have to accept the conditions even if we object to some of them. Insurance policies have a long list of exclusions which are almost same for all companies. Why are people so careless about privacy? Probably because governments collect data on every aspect of our lives which strips us of our dignity. Our taxes are used to pay for the surveillance equipment and officials who go through the data. Facebook, Twitter and Google are free. Apps used by these sites provide us with a wide range of free services but the government is unable to protect us from criminal and terrorist attacks for which they spy on us. People cannot be prosecuted for stupidity which they display on Facebook. Large numbers of people are dying when taking selfies on 'smart phones'. So we should ban smart phones. Since people do not read or understand privacy agreements R Matthan recommends getting rid of them. Instead there should be clear laws guarding privacy. But then government will also be bound by the same laws. Politicians are not going to fall for that.